climate science

This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. This site is and always will be advert free and I do not expect you to pay me. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07)

Friday, 9 December 2016

Here is the essence of the story and what a great choice he has made. This man has been fighting against the regulations which have been currently coming from the present Environmental Protection Agency leadership. This must surely signal a complete change. More on this here. And listen to the interview about this here. But only for a short time

This article puts the case forward, using the example of forest fires in Tennessee being blamed on global warming, despite the evidence not backing this at all. Just one example among so many where the weather is confused with climate and used to bolster a very weak case for man made alarming global warming/climate change. But the public are growing weary of this and we are hoping that Donald Trump will stand firm and bring in a dose of reality. The time is right for it.

Thursday, 8 December 2016

This article by Labour peer, Lord Donoughue, in which he makes a strong case for his party to change its alarmist stance on climate change. I doubt that they will take his sensible advice. The article was published in the magazine for UK politicians "The House". This magazine is distributed to all British MPs and I often get to read it free, as I have it passed to me from my local MP. This is just as well as an annual subscription costs £195. The Lord Donoughue article is in the 2 December edition alongside the pro-alarmist case put by Lord Deben and others. It is good to see the case for climate scepticism put forward yet again.

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Here's the story of this new technology that is about to make oil even more widely available. Any climate alarmists will now be having palpitations at the thought of a whole new raft of fossil fuel coming on stream. So much for peak oil! What a good job that climate alarm has been exaggerated and we can cope with the climate by using technology.

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

This article explains how Eric Schneiderman, the New York State Attorney General has found his attempt to attack the Competitive Enterprise Institute has back-fired as his case unravelled. Well done to the CEI for defending freedom of speech and standing up to this state official.

Monday, 5 December 2016

Poor David Rose, the Mail on Sunday writer who dared to inform us that global land temperatures had fallen by record amounts over the last few months, has been called all sorts of bad names by the climate alarmists. This article gives some details of the row, which highlights how much courage it takes to inform the public about facts to do with our climate (or weather) that don't fit the alarmist narrative.

Friday, 2 December 2016

Here's the sad tale of the UK government's smart meter fiasco, and a very costly fiasco it is. Once again Paul Homewood has highlighted something which both parliament and the mainstream media seem to have ignored.

"The government have just released their long overdue assessment of the cost of the country’s smart metering program. Hidden among the figures is the amount of money that they have spent. So far, they have squandered £450 million on the project, despite the fact that not a single compliant smart meter [which conforms to their specifications] has been installed in any house. By a strange coincidence, that’s exactly the same amount as the shortfall in BHS’ pension fund which occurred when Philip Green flogged off BHS."

The government were aiming to install 53 million new gas and electricity meters in British homes by 2020. Half of these were expected to be installed by 2017, when there would be a project review. The estimated cost of £10.98bn has been underestimated by at least £1.6bn, because they have forgotten to include the cost of smart gas meters. The true cost could amount to at least £14.67bn, which equates to about £560 per household.

The design of smart meters in Britain means that if they are hacked, power could be turned off for large chunks of the country, causing massive damage to the grid. When questioned on the sense of this design in meetings at DECC the reply from utilities is “why would anyone ever do that”. You can read the whole saga at the link at the start of this post.

Following the death of Fidel Castro, it's perhaps a good time to think about the malign impacts of totalitarian government, and the damage that political agendas can do to science.

"The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Dear Reader, you're way ahead of me. Yes of course, I was struck immediately by the read-across to climate science. The parallels are remarkable.

You'll be familiar with the story of Lysenko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko He was a Russian biologist and agronomist who rejected Darwinian evolution and the rôle of genes, and preferred instead the Lamarckian concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Of course that concept is difficult to accept – especially when you reflect that a man who has lost a leg is perfectly capable of fathering a child with two legs. With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to believe that Lamarckism was once regarded as a credible alternative to Darwinian theory – but so it was.

And Lysenko, in the late 1920s, took that view, and built a whole theory of plant breeding on it. More than that, he had the ear of Stalin, and Lysenkoism became official Soviet doctrine. The theory was imposed rigidly. More than 3000 mainstream biologists were fired, imprisoned or executed for challenging it.

Lysenkoism held sway in the USSR until the sixties, with dire consequences for Soviet agriculture. Again with hindsight it is difficult to credit the fact that it survived so long, when it plainly did not work. But worse than that, not only did it fail in the field (literally), it also totally blocked proper academic study and research in Russia in the area of plant breeding and Mendelian genetics for decades.

So how close are the parallels with climate theory? Of course Lysenkoism was restricted to the USSR. And it was imposed by a totalitarian régime that could, and did, shoot dissenters. Climate alarmism, on the other hand is broadly speaking global (even if some countries merely pay lip-service to the orthodoxy). It is imposed not by a violent autocracy, but by an intolerant and often vindictive establishment – scientific, media and political. It threatens not imprisonment and murder, but the destruction of careers. Scientists who dare to challenge the prevailing view are denied tenure, and publication, and perhaps worst of all grant funding. As a result, those who do dare to challenge the orthodoxy tend to be older scientists secure in their careers (and their pension funds).

And just as Lysenkoism prevented Russian agriculture from doing the right things, so Warmism, by focusing on mitigation, blinds us to the possible need for adaptation (in the unlikely event that warming becomes a significant problem).

Wealthy economies and societies are far more resilient to adverse conditions. But prosperity depends critically on the availability of secure and affordable energy – which mitigation and greenery militate against. Warmism prescribes vast up-front investment to guard against highly speculative and uncertain long-term outcomes. By the time you realise you're wrong, you've blown billions. Adaptation on the other hand is proportionate, and involves spending money on targeted projects only as and when (and if) circumstances justify it.

The main difference between Lysenkoism and Warmism, as I see it, is that the damage done by Warmism is on a far larger scale and will be far more difficult to reverse.

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

At this moment the current Conservative government is sticking with the Climate Change Act (CCA) which was passed by a previous Labour government, but, as I have said several times on this blog it is simply impossible to see how the later stages of "decarbonisation" of our nation's fuel and energy needs can be carried out without crippling our industry and causing massive pain to the citizens of the UK.

This is brought out very clearly in a series of blog posts over at NALOPKT (that's Not a Lot of People Know That, to those who didn't guess it). This is the first and the previous two develop the theme further.

What it says, in summary, is that whilst electricity demand currently peaks at around 50GW, gas demand frequently peaks at over 300GW. If this demand for gas had to be replaced by electricity, as required to meet the demands of the CCA, it would not only need massive increases in generating capacity, it would also necessitate a complete rebuild of the grid and transmission network as the current system would be overwhelmed. All this is still a few years away, so our present lot of politicians can still say they will do it, but the questions they will soon have to answer is - how? and equally important - who is going to pay?

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Here is his latest post, which I recommend to all. I have known Roger over many years and he has always been consistent and uses measured words in favour of common sense. Sometimes he has caused controversy, but he does not let this prevent him from speaking his mind. If only we had more politicians of his calibre and with his courage.

Monday, 28 November 2016

This article in the widely read Mail on Sunday confirms what most people expected - that the recent warming was mainly due to the strong El Nino, not CO2 induced warming. Now that the El Nino is over land temperatures have already fallen by a whole degree Celsius in just a few months. If Donald Trump wants to show that climate alarm is exaggerated nonsense he may find that this is going to make it even easier for him.

Sunday, 27 November 2016

This piece looks at the recent thinking of the UK regulator and the government on the cost of renewable subsidies to the consumer, which pose a significant cost to consumers, both citizens and business.

Friday, 25 November 2016

Never heard of Doggerland? Blame it on climate change 20,000 years ago. Rising waters have forced populations to relocate since the dawn of early man. Consider that 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, the North Sea didn't exist. Global sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower than today, Britain was part of continental Europe and Scotland linked by land to Norway. A natural climate shift began to melt the glaciers of Scandinavia. Seismic surveys and ice cores from Greenland suggest that sea level rose as much as 6 feet per century during a series of melting events. Gradually the North Sea formed and then the southern area inundated more land forming islands.

Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.
The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim “river silting” caused the change, but the real “culprit” was sea level change.
Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps, and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is 2 miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber.

Just imagine if we were living at that time and we had climate alarmists speaking authoritatively about this warming being caused by mankind emitting CO2? Think how convincing they would seem as the sea level kept on rising, even though the cause of this was entirely natural we would fall under their spell.

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

This piece looks at the hard road ahead for the new Trump administration in the USA to roll back all the punitive energy and climate change regulations that the Obama people put in. They must suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty. And also carry out a truly independent review of the assertions, models, “homogenized” data, science, and research that underpins the whole alarmist agenda, thus exposing the whole charade for what it is.

But, this article suggests he is softening his stance, which is worrying for those of us who wanted to see a realistic approach. The climate alarmists are very powerful and even Donald Trump is subject to pressure.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Here is an interesting post on what is happening in the Arctic. It is quite a detailed post with lots of visual aids and charts, but quite readable. In fact the blog that it comes from contains a lot of interesting musings about the climate and so I have linked to it via the sidebar.

Monday, 21 November 2016

This piece looks at the expectation of the third world nations. There is widespread unease about finance at the Nov. 7-18 talks on climate change among almost 200 nations being held in Marrakesh, Morocco.
"My only worry is the money," said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. "It's worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic," he told Reuters. In fact it is ALL about the money!

Sunday, 20 November 2016

This report explains the find which is worth $900 billion and ensures the USA will have supplies for many decades to come. So much for peak oil! On top of the Trump presidency surely this means the end of any possibility that the USA will reduce its use of fossil fuels. It will be a terrific boost to the economy and jobs. The best possible start for the Trump government.

Saturday, 19 November 2016

This paper gives a clear look into the evidence for CO2 caused global warming. It finds no evidence of any tropical hotspot, which is the one clear signal that the planet is warming due to CO2 emissions. This result means that there is no risk from increasing levels of CO2 up to the present, hence any effect from it is likely to be small.

Friday, 18 November 2016

This article refers to a letter written to the various "scientific societies" in the USA in response to their Consensus Scientific View of Climate Change letter to the USA Congress. Below is the letter, which ought to be adapted and sent to all scientific institutions that subscribe to and perpetuate global climate alarm. The Research Report referred to as a link in the letter requires a good knowledge of statistics, but it the statistical arguments it makes which lead to its clear conclusion that the link between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and any rapid rise in global average temperatures is not proven.

Dear---------,

This letter is written with respect to the June 28 Letter, subscribed by your organization and some thirty other U.S.-based scientific societies. I attach a copy of that June 28 Letter for your reference. Besides this letter to you, we are addressing letters similar to this one to each of those other societies.
On September 21, 2016 a major new Research Report was published on the ICECAP website and at other locations. The Research Report was undertaken by its authors because they were unable to find anywhere in the literature of climate change a mathematically rigorous validation of a statistically significant, quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and surface as well as tropospheric temperatures.
The Research Report provides the methodology and findings of a definitive study designed to validate or invalidate the principal scientific hypotheses underlying the EPA’s December 2009 Endangerment Finding with respect to so-called “greenhouse gases,” including the hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to be associated with harmful or dangerous increases in surface temperatures. The results of the Research Report apply equally well to the Physical Science reports issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last few decades. In accordance with the scientific method, the Research Report used the best available temperature data from multiple sources, each of them structurally independent from the others, for the validation/invalidation exercise. The data used in the Research Report are fully available via links in the Report itself, and came from sources including satellites, weather balloons, ocean buoys, and also surface thermometer records.
The principal conclusions of the Research Report are as follows:
* “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.”
* “Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, then EPA’s climate models that rely upon the THS assumption are also invalid.
* “[T]his analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
* “[T]hese results clearly demonstrate – 13 times in fact – that once just the ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all.”
The June 28 Letter to which you subscribed contains statements strongly implying that there had previously been some sort of empirical validation of a quantitative causal relationship between increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and increasing global average surface temperatures. For example, you state: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” Later in the June 28 Letter, you state: “There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
However, as noted above, the authors of the Research Report have been unable to find in any scientific study a rigorous empirical validation of a statistically significant quantitative relationship between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and tropical, contiguous U.S. or global temperatures. Indeed we can find no paper that actually provides mathematically rigorous empirical proof that the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on world temperatures is different from zero with statistical significance.
As you might realize, we are concerned that prestigious scientific societies, including your own, have subscribed to a letter to Members of Congress purporting to convey scientific propositions as having been definitively established, when in fact there has never been a mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the propositions stated, and indeed there now appears to be a definitive scientific invalidation of those propositions.
Obviously, the June 28 Letter preceded the September 21 Research Report. We therefore ask you to reconsider your June 28 Letter in light of the Research Report. Alternatively, could you kindly:
* Refer us to the research study or studies that, in a mathematically proper and rigorous fashion, empirically validate a quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures as reflected in all thirteen major data sets as used in the Research Report. Such a study must be very clear as to the analysis process and data utilized and must be able to be replicated.
* Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically validate the so-called Tropical Hot Spot that is a critical underpinning of the “lines of evidence” on which EPA says it relies for its Endangerment Finding. (The term “Tropical Hot Spot” refers to the hypothesized warming pattern whereby increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause the tropical mid-troposphere to warm more rapidly than the lower troposphere, which in turn warms more rapidly than the surface.)
* Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically demonstrates that there is statistically significant warming to account for in the global troposphere after controlling for ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] effects.
In closing, we wish to remind you of the well-known quote from noted physicist Richard Feynman:

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

As a leader of a major scientific society, you of course realize that Feynman’s aphorism captures the essence of the scientific method that underlies the entire project of science, including all of the work of your organization and its members. If you as a scientific society are going to use your authority to advocate for a government policy agenda, the American people are entitled to know the specific empirical work that validates your scientific hypothesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Also, if there is apparently definitive empirical research, such as the Research Report, that would seem to invalidate the principal hypotheses that underlie your policy advocacy, the American people are entitled to your definitive refutation of that work before you continue your policy advocacy.
In short, if you have mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the hypotheses that underlie your advocacy, kindly provide it. If you do not, kindly say so.
Very truly yours,
Francis Menton
Law Office of Francis Menton
85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004fmenton@manhattancontrarian.com
Alan Carlin
Webmaster: carlineconomics.cocarlineconomics@gmail.com

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Dansgaard-Oeschger Events: Writing in No Tricks Zone, Kenneth Richard discusses papers on Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles, which indicate that: “Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth’s climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago (Dansgaard 1984, Bond et al. 1997, 1999). …There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations. These include up to 10°C (in the Greenland region) were reached within as little as 50 years or about 2°C per decade.” One can assert that D-O events apply only to the Arctic, or to Greenland, specifically. However, alarmists claim that a warming of the Arctic and of Greenland are the result of CO2 caused warming. The alarmists have generally failed to discuss D-O Events and to separate this natural variability from the influence of CO2.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

This article gives the details, which fly in the face of the pronouncements of the climate alarmist lobby. For every alarmist story there is another to say the opposite. Is it any wonder that the public are cynical?

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

This article explains what is happening. A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just FOUR years as the sun prepares for 'hibernation' - triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events. A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilisation of the Earth's crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded.

Monday, 14 November 2016

This piece makes a very interesting observation about the surface temperature of earth. The GHE hypothesis has a testable result which is well-accepted by its proponents. It is that if there were no greenhouse gases capable of absorbing the radiation being emitted by the earth’s surface due to its temperature, the earth’s average temperature would be about 33oC less than its observed average temperature. So, all one has to do to prove the GHE hypothesis to be false is to refer to observations of the earth’s natural system which demonstrate that the earth’s average temperature cannot be less than that which is observed. You can click on the link and read the article to follow the argument which I found interesting.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

This article looks at the controversial science of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), also called cold fusion. Whether you believe in the man made global warming scare or not, we will have to look at new forms of energy at some stage and this is one candidate that could play a part, perhaps?

Saturday, 12 November 2016

After Paris: Greece Set To Win €1.75 Billion From EU Climate Scheme To Build Two Coal PlantsThe Guardian, 3 November 2016 Arthur NeslenPublic funds from Europe’s carbon trading programme – set up to help poorer countries reduce emissions – will help build two plants that will emit about 7m tonnes of CO2 a year

Greece appears on track to win access to a controversial EU programme that could earmark up to €1.75bn (£1.56bn) in free carbon allowances for the building of two massive coal-fired power plants. The 1100MW coal stations will cost an estimated €2.4bn, and emit around 7m tonnes of CO2 a year, casting doubt on their viability without a cash injection from an exemption under Europe’s carbon trading market.

The European parliament’s industry committee last month approved a rule change allowing Greece to join the scheme, the ‘10c derogation’ of the emissions trading system (ETS). Now, positive votes in the environment committee next month and at a plenary in February could set wheels in motion for the coal plants.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch Liberal MEP on the environment committee, said: “Lignite [coal] has no future and should not be stimulated in any way. Greece’s intention of using public funds to revive its lignite-based model should not be allowed. Article 10C is there to help poor countries towards a sustainable energy future. Lignite does not fit these criteria.”

“You couldn’t make this up,” added Imke Lübbeke, WWF Europe’s head climate and energy policy. “The ETS was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it now risks being abused to facilitate investments in the new coal plants, which would operate well within the 2060s.

Friday, 11 November 2016

UK Court Rules Unwinding Of Renewable Energy Subsidies is allowedGlobal Warming Policy Forum, 6 November 2016 John Constable, GWPF Energy EditorThe Court of Appeal recently upheld the government’s right to cancel the Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption for renewable generators. In effect this is a retrospective removal of subsidy entitlement, and should remind investors that even a seemingly secure economic rent will collapse when push comes to shove. This has significant implications for the Carbon Price Floor (CPF) and also the value of certificates issued under the Renewables Obligation (RO). The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) may also be affected. For the time being the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) and Contracts for Difference (CfD) are probably safe, but anyone in the electricity sector relying on subsidies and handouts has been given fair warning: The government giveth, and the government taketh away.The main flaws with current energy policies as they relate to climate revolve around their inflexibility. Broadly speaking, the policies simply assume that the premises driving their motivation cannot change, except to require still more urgent action to reduce emissions. This was clearly an error. A full gearbox, including a reverse gear, is a necessary feature of any legislation whatsoever, principally because errare humanum est. This is still so even when the policy is grounded in area designed to minimise such errors, scientific research. Indeed, both the history and the philosophy of science tell us that scientific propositions are without exception provisional and subject to change. There simply are no absolute truths in any scientific field, even at a very fundamental level, a point that Schrödinger famously noted in What is Life? (1944) when he reminded his audience that “the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout”.

Scientists should never forget, though in the heat of policy debate they sometimes do, that their propositions are reasoned abstractions from observations, and those observations are necessarily finite. There is always more to learn, even in areas that seem rock solid. We may not expect the clock to suddenly go backwards and wind its own spring, but, as Schrödinger puts it, this infinitesimal probability “always remains the background”. In many cases, particularly those relevant to policy, the probability of change is far from infinitesimal.

This sceptical point has from time to time been apparent to political leaders. It is over three hundred years since Oliver Cromwell, with a mighty puritan oath, “in the bowels of Christ”, asked the Synod of the Church of Scotland to “think it possible that ye may be mistaken”. But legislatures become overconfident, and the necessity for provisions for flexibility in law-making is neglected. The Climate Change Act of 2008, for example, is designed as a one-shot rocket, quite without steering and with precious little provision for deceleration.

Paradoxically, this lack of flexibility makes the legislation fragile, and investors relying on such law should be extremely cautious. What cannot go on, will not go on, and if a change of pace is not possible, abrupt termination becomes inevitable. Precisely because the legislation contains no obvious means of control and reversal, government, being under the pressure of force majeure itself, may simply apply overwhelming legal pressure to adjust the vehicle’s direction, and even turn it around. A recent ruling in the Court of Appeal reminds us that government is entitled to act robustly in the public interest.

In the July 2015 budget, the then Chancellor George Osborne removed the exemption from the Climate Change Levy (CCL) applying since 2001 to renewable generators. At the time of removal this exemption was worth approximately £5/MWh to all existing generators, so in that sense was retrospective. While the CCL subsidy was small in comparison to those available under the Renewables Obligation (for example £45/MWh for onshore wind and £90/MWh for offshore wind), it was a very welcome extra layer of jam, £381m thick in 2014/15, and its removal much resented. Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd, owner of one of the larger renewable generation portfolios in the UK, and Drax Power Ltd, one of the largest single producers of renewable energy, both attempted to challenge the decision in the courts, arguing, in essence, that they had reasonable expectations that the exemption would continue, and that the government had acted unfairly and unreasonably. The High Court rejected their challenge. Drax then, sensibly, withdrew; but Infinis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which, in the persons of Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Lord Justice Sales, delivered its judgment this week, and firmly rejected the arguments that Infinis had presented. It seems unlikely that this judgment will be reversed.

The Court of Appeal summarised the case thus:

The central issues in dispute between the parties are as to what standards of foreseeability and legal certainty EU law requires in the context of changes to the tax regime and what requirements have to be satisfied to generate a legally protected legitimate expectation. (Para 42)

The Court concluded, from a broad review of jurisprudence and other cases, that the standard applicable was rigorous not loose. The relevant state authorities must have given “precise assurances” and “actively promoted” these expectations. “Vague indications” are not enough. The Court observed:

In our judgment, the Appellant in the present case cannot bring itself within the principle of protection of legitimate expectations according to this test. The Respondents had made no promise and given no assurance that the RSE Exemption would be maintained indefinitely, nor that it would be subject to the giving of a period of notice before being changed. In the context of establishing and changing the rules of a national tax regime, a prudent and circumspect economic operator would appreciate that the tax authorities and the national legislature might change the tax code without giving notice. They are entitled to do so, as it is their function in a democratic society to manage the public finances by weighing up all the competing demands on the public purse against all the possible, conflicting ways of raising tax revenue and adjusting the elements on both sides of the equation as they see fit, in accordance with the policy they think should be pursued. Further, the Appellant was not entitled to expect that the existing situation involving having the RSE Exemption in place would continue, because, absent any precise assurance given to the contrary, the tax authorities and Parliament had a general discretion to alter the tax regime as they saw fit. (Para 55)

In the absence of precise assurances, by which Parliament might bind itself, there is a “general discretion” to make such changes as are required in the public interest.

The significance of this point for other renewable subsidies, for example the Renewables Obligation, is substantial. Of course, it is perfectly true that the RO is not a tax exemption, and may not at first glance appear to be a tax. The revenue is not collected by the Treasury from consumers and disbursed to the renewable generators, instead it passes from consumers to generators via electricity suppliers. However, and unsurprisingly since the imposition on consumers is both unavoidable and unrequited, the Treasury does, for accounting purposes, regard it as public expenditure, and has consequently asserted its authority over this spending through the Levy Control Framework (LCF).

In principle, then, the RO is indeed a tax, though of a special kind, and as a result no one should assume that this judgment is irrelevant to the continued value of Renewable Obligation certificates. Indeed, the RO system was designed explicitly so that the value of the certificates would fall as the targets were met, a fact that may become relevant in the years to come.

In other areas the judgment has a straightforward relevance. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is funded via the Treasury, and anyone relying on this income may wish to hedge immediately. The Carbon Price Floor is straightforwardly a tax, and rumours are already in circulation that government is considering making major changes, perhaps even cancellation.

The status of the Feed-in Tariff, and that of the new Contracts for Difference, seems more secure. These are both contractual entitlements, “precise assurances” regarding particular prices, though doubtless everyone will now be reading these contracts extremely carefully to see whether there is any room left in which Parliament’s “general discretion” might be exercised.

In this context the numerous and at first sight vacuous government statements on the need to respect the burden placed on the consumer may now seem rather more important. However, and in spite of the discretion that this important judgment outlines, governments have been and will continue to be quite properly reluctant to achieve flexibility in legislation by abrupt or forceful means. The state would prefer to be regarded as trustworthy. That said, no one will respect a government for persisting in obviously foolish or economically dangerous policies, as the climate policies very probably are, and when in a tight corner the government will do what it must, even if specific undertakings have been given.

Investors should recognise this as a normal business risk. Machiavelli had neither a Harvard MBA nor a degree in PPE from Oxford, but his advice is nonetheless sound: “A ruler will never be short of reasons to explain away a broken promise”.

Thursday, 10 November 2016

More than 10,000 people are flying to Marrakesh for a UN climate change conference despite officials admitting that they will make little or no progress on key issues.

The two-week meeting, which begins in the Moroccan city on Monday, was declared as the “conference of action”, where 195 countries were supposed to reveal how they will fulfil pledges made a year ago to cut their emissions. Instead, they are likely to agree to suspend talks until 2018.

Previous conferences have produced communiqués with grand titles named after their location, including last year’s Paris Agreement. A UK government source said: “Will there be a Marrakesh Something? There will have to be a decision that basically says we agree to reconvene with a date.” However, delegates will be able to stay busy thanks to a Michelin guide to the conference supplied by the UN. It lists top hotels, “beauty and wellness spas”, as well as the best beaches.

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

This list of things that Donald Trump intends to do includes "Cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes". So I say all power to Donald - now let's see if he lives up to that promise, and if he does how will the world react? Will they stump up the shortfall or will they just scale back on all this spending. My guess is the latter.

Trump’s victory “will be unfavourable for the global pollution fight, though the trend to combat climate change may not change worldwide,” said Zheng Xinye, associate dean at the School of Economics at the Renmin University of China in Beijing.

Trump has questioned the science of climate change, vowed to pull out of the landmark Paris agreement reached last year and pledged to stimulate production of coal, the "dirtiest" fossil fuel.

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Here is a link to the short video. I think this kind of stuff will back-fire on to those climate alarmists who use it. There is no doubt that these children have been indoctrinated with these scare stories in the video. They could not possibly understand the complexities of climate science and so be aware of the strong possibility that what they are saying is wrong.

Monday, 7 November 2016

A Reality Check On U.S. Energy ConsumptionU.S. Energy Information Administration, 1 November 2016 Despite the changes in fuel sources, fossil fuels have continued to make up a large percentage of U.S. energy consumption. In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of total consumption. 107 years later it’s more or less the same: fossil fuels still account for 81% of total energy consumption in 2015.

Saturday, 5 November 2016

This article gives the details. There have been many articles in the press and on TV which try to pin the blame on a "warmer ocean" caused by CO2. Most people who read such articles have no way of knowing that there is volcanic activity, which is deliberately not mentioned.

Friday, 4 November 2016

This piece explains what is happening. What is certain is that all climate scientists still have a great deal to learn in order to understand why these anomalies occur, let alone predict them. It is rather like volcanic activity, though much less devastating.

Thursday, 3 November 2016

This article gives the details. For all their very costly efforts so far, the EU has a long way to go to keep up with its CO2 reduction promises. The hard bits are still to come and as soon as they attempt to tackle such things as home heating and cars they will face a public backlash and they know it.

Wednesday, 2 November 2016

Another top climate scientist has joined the well-respected Global Warming Policy Foundation's academic advisory board. Just look at the list of senior climate scientists who are now prepared to publicly align themselves with this organisation. If alarmists say that there are no respected scientists in the UK who are sceptical of alarmism, they need to be pointed to this group.

"Simply put, the danger is not climate change – which will always be with us. The real, immediate danger is renewable energy programs implemented in the name of controlling Earth’s perpetually fickle climate.

The 5,000 megawatt wind energy system being discussed for Lake Erie – and even more so, the absurdly ambitious 4,000,000 megawatt wind energy 'vision' for U.S. lake and ocean areas – will harm human health and welfare, job creation and preservation, wildlife and environmental quality, while doing nothing to reduce or prevent climate change: man-made, 'dangerous' or otherwise."

See the entire detailed comment at CFACT.org. They make an excellent resource of the facts about wind. The turbine industry paints a pretty picture about free energy from the wind. Sadly, there is nothing "free" about it. Every new turbine means higher costs for ratepayers and a higher burden for taxpayers.

We should build no new wind turbines unless and until they become genuinely economically viable in a competitive market. They must also be subjected to the same environmental standards as proven, efficient sources of energy.

At the present wind energy is nothing more than a get rich scheme that generates subsidies for its investors, but is of little meaningful use toward keeping our lights on.

Monday, 31 October 2016

Booker's latest article is warning of the looming cost of our electricity as the cuts in fossil fuel use continue to bite. although the Germans pay a lot more for their electricity currently than we do, we are catching up fast due to the ridiculous climate change act. The government must dump it soon.

Sunday, 30 October 2016

This question is often raised as being evidence for global warming. There is clear evidence for it, but what is not clear is exactly why it is happening. This article looks at the issue in detail. In the comments several readers show links to articles on the urban heat island (UHI) effect as a possible cause, while others point to the fact that there has been a preponderance of milder winters in the UK in recent years (which are welcomed by most people). The article itself from the Royal Society shows on its graph that springs have been both warmer and cooler in the period studied, so there is no single trend.

Saturday, 29 October 2016

Here is a very disturbing article on the validity of "peer review" of scientific papers in which other scientists look at the work and pass judgment on it. It reveals a murky world in which some papers are rejected with no really valid reason while other papers of little or no merit can get passed. Yet it is this lottery that provides the evidence for costly political decisions such as those for global warming.

"In 1982, 12 already published papers were assigned fictitious author and institution names before being resubmitted to the same journal 18 to 32 months later. The duplication was noticed in three instances, but the remaining nine papers underwent review by two referees each. Only one paper was deemed worthy of seeing the light of day the second time it was examined by the same journal that had already published it." The whole article is well worth reading

Friday, 28 October 2016

This piece is a thorough debunking of pretty much all the nonsense on GW that you are likely to meet. It is so useful that I have put it at the top of the link list on the RHS of this blog as a reference point.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

This article shows what is happening. Apparently in areas where data is missing NOAA is claiming that there is record warming - completely at odds with the satellite data. Of course none of this is being reported in the mainstream media such as newspapers or TV.

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Reuters, 21 October 2016The French government is set to drop plans to introduce a carbon tax, French financial daily Les Echos said on Thursday.

The newspaper, quoting several sources, said the socialist government will not include the carbon tax in a draft 2016 budget update currently being discussed.

Environment Minister Segolene Royal had said in May that France would unilaterally introduce a carbon price floor of about 30 euros ($33) a tonne with a view to kickstart broader European action to cut emissions and drive forward the December 2015 United Nations-led international climate accord.

The plan had pushed power prices higher in the spring.

Les Echos quoted a source as saying that the measure is too complicated to put in place and might be unconstitutional.

The paper said that state-owned electric utility EDF, which produces mostly carbon-free nuclear power, was in favor of the measure, but that gas utility Engie SA had lobbied against the tax because it would make its gas-fired power plants less competitive than similar plants in neighboring countries.

A source close to the French government told Reuters that nothing had been decided yet on the carbon tax but confirmed there were doubts about it.

Monday, 24 October 2016

This piece gives the details of a deception made by a top UK university to help secure £9million of YOUR money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll the climate change agenda.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as ‘a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain’. The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.

He is also the president of the British Academy, an invitation-only society reserved for the academic elite. It disburses grants worth millions to researchers – and to Lord Stern’s own organisation.Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.

Bob Ward, Nick Stern - these are central figures in the alarmist camp. Why should we trust them?

Sunday, 23 October 2016

Reuters, 20 October 2016 Karen BraunCooling sea surface temperatures in the key Niño 3.4 region have touched the levels of early 2012. Many have doubted forecasts calling for the onset of the first La Niña in almost five years, believing that its failure to materialize in convincing fashion last summer – as originally predicted – means that it may be off the table for 2016-17.

But in recent weeks, the oceans and atmosphere have been pulling everything into place to facilitate a potentially stronger La Niña than previously thought, so those who follow commodities markets may want to take a second look.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Climate Prediction Center reissued the La Niña watch that was removed in early September. The watch indicates that conditions are favourable for the phenomenon’s development within the next six months.

El Niño-Southern Oscillation, with its cool phase La Niña and warm phase El Niño, is one of the most reliable long-term indicators for global climate. The ENSO phases can have drastically different impacts on commodities worldwide – from energy use to grain yields.

La Niña, characterized by cooler-than-normal surface waters in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, has not officially been in place since the first quarter of 2012. But recently, cooling sea surface temperatures in the key Niño 3.4 region have touched the levels of early 2012 (reut.rs/2e2lI7y). CPC now says there is a 70 percent chance that La Niña will develop during the Northern Hemisphere autumn 2016 and there is a 55 percent chance it will persist during winter 2016-17. This is up from last month’s forecast of a 40 to 45 percent chance of development.

The environment has not fully committed to the La Niña cycle for Northern Hemispheric winter as the sea surface temperature anomalies have at times hesitated to maintain the downward plunge.

But there are larger-scale features in the oceans and atmosphere that appear consistent with soon welcoming a full-on La Niña, rather than a borderline event or a neutral ENSO.

PACIFIC COOPERATION Over the past few months, there has been a considerable shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, a large-scale, long-term climate variability in the North Pacific Ocean that is closely associated with ENSO cycles.

A positive PDO index is associated with anomalously cool waters and below-average sea level pressure in the interior North Pacific, while a negative PDO index is the inverse scenario. Positive PDO is often correlated with El Niño and negative PDO typically coincides with La Niña.

The PDO index has been unusually positive over the past two years, which is not surprising given the record-strong El Niño observed late last year. Since 1900, the first six months of 2016 and 2015 ranked third and fourth for highest average PDO index, behind 1941 and 1940 (reut.rs/2e2gB7l).

But the index has been on a steep decline over the past couple of months, and September’s reading of 0.45 was the lowest value since February 2014. PDO has not been negative since December 2013.

This substantial shift in overall oceanic-atmospheric conditions certainly makes a good case for La Niña, so a close watch on PDO trends over the next few months may hint at whether La Niña conditions could stick around, or whether neutral ENSO or a reversal back to El Niño is possible in 2017.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

This article gives the details of what the fund has raised, which is only a small fraction of what it expected. It also shows that it is struggling to spend even a small fraction of that. Oh dear, what will the poor third world nations say? A lot of naughty little words, I expect. I am not surprised to learn this, as I thought that the West would struggle to find these sort of sums at a time when they have such large debts on top of slow growth. They need to wake up and face the reality - it isn't going to happen.

Friday, 21 October 2016

This article gives the background. In recent weeks the price of oil has increased slightly from $40 a barrel to around $50. The middle eastern oil states which make up OPEC have decided to cut back on production in the hope that oil prices will rise further, but it appears that USA production is set to remain high and the world will continue to have production outstripping supply for the next year or two at least.

Thursday, 20 October 2016

The House of Lords is holding an inquiry into the economics of UK energy policy. This would seem to be long overdue, though whether the government will listen to reason is another matter as they are so entranced by the global warming mantra. To help to give them sensible guidance the Global Warming Policy Foundation have sent in this written submission. It is a real eye opener.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

While some prominent climate alarmist commentators are trying hard to deny the validity of a pause or hiatus in the global surface temperature, there are many scientists who do accept its reality and are trying to explain the reason for it, according to this report.

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

This article gives the details of a new tax to be introduced in Canada on CO2 emissions. A tax that will further impoverish struggling Canadian families and will make no difference to the climate at all. Why do all these climate alarmist refer to CO2 as pollution? If carbon dioxide is pollution, then every single human being is a non-stop polluter exhaling CO2 every minute of every day.

Monday, 17 October 2016

This post reveals the stark truth about the costs that are being and are about to be spent on cutting down on CO2 emissions in Germany. No doubt similar figures can be attributed to other Western nations undertaking similar policies. 25,000 euros for a family of four - and it will not have any measurable effect on the climate or earth's surface temperature. We know that China and India and all the developing world will increase their emissions far more than the cuts made by Germany and their fellow developed nations.

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Here is an interesting article citing a government document which attempts to "sex up" a report from the IPCC. It is widely known that governments want to convince the public that global warming is a serious problem in order to justify their very costly policies, but why do they believe it in the first place when the evidence is so flimsy?

Saturday, 15 October 2016

This article by the excellent Paul Homewood looks at the increasing demands of climate change extremist, James Hansen, former head of the NASAGoddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. First Hansen criticises the Paris Climate Accord for not providing an adequate solution. Of course he is quite right in that assertion, as it is not even binding, but what he does not admit is that he himself cannot find anything that will bind the major emitting nations such as China or India to reduce emissions. It is all very well to demand draconian cuts on the USA or the EU and to say that these are justified to compensate for historic emissions, but unless the other major nations cut their present levels of emissions there cannot be a worldwide reduction. The other major point he glosses over is how fossil fuels can be replaced with anything on the same scale at a feasible price. Renewables simply cannot do it.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

This piece explains what is going on in an Australian school, presumably with the approval of those in charge there. This blatant attempt to indoctrinate the young will rebound on them when they grow up to realise how they were duped by those who should have taught them to view things in a sceptical light.

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Yet another tax to save the planet from global warming has been agreed. Anyone who travels by air will pay it according to this report. In practice all these taxes will achieve nothing other than to push up the cost of living for all of us and prevent the poorest from doing things at all. Air travel will emit just the same amount of CO2 as it did before (probably more, globally as those in Chine and India start to get richer) and global temperatures will warm or cool depending on various factors that man has absolutely no control over.

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

Finally the UK' new government has found the courage to over-rule the local council that has, understandably prevented fracking of natural gas in its area. Understandable, because they have been intimidated by a vociferous campaign by local people closest to the new drilling platforms and they fear for their positions, but this is much too important to leave to local politicians, it is a national project. Here are the latest details. There will surely be other decisions giving permissions to follow.

Monday, 10 October 2016

European car buyers are not convinced that electric vehicles are good value and suitable to replace petrol and diesel vehicles. Sales have declined according to this article and that is against a low base line. The incentives will either have to increase, or (more likely) we will start to see governments trying to increase the cost of petrol/diesel cars to persuade us to change. How can the planet ever be saved?

Sunday, 9 October 2016

Here is a link to another excellent speech by David TC Davies MP. It is a pity that there weren't more MP's in the chamber to hear him, but it was still pleasing to hear such good sense spoken. He is saying what many other MP's are thinking, but are still afraid to say, as they fear being subjected to ridicule by the "mainstream majority".

Saturday, 8 October 2016

Well, the 100 months is just coming to an end. So now is a good time to take stock of the claims they made and that is exactly what Paul Homewood has done here. In his usual clinical fashion he has looked at the data and found nothing to get alarmed about, despite the fact that levels of CO2 have continued to rise, despite the UK reducing its emissions by 22%. As Paul says, the world is in a remarkably good place at the moment. It certainly won’t be, if you take away fossil fuel.

Friday, 7 October 2016

This piece, taken from a Guardian article, shows James Lovelock, the father of the environmental movement, now admitting that he was wrong on global warming. It takes a lot of courage to admit to being wrong about something that has become so big, and this confession by Lovelock should receive much more coverage than will be the case.

Translate

Remember when our leaders told us they were certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? They are the same people who now say CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic weather. Politicians tell us what they want us to believe.

WELCOME TO A SANE LOOK AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

"Global warming" could be the most costly scare story in the history of man. It is hysterical alarm built on exaggeration and deceit, fuelled by those with a vested interest.Please use the search facility at the top left of the site to find specific articles among over 3400 on the site. Some suggested key topics: clouds, biofuels, hurricanes, windpower, global cooling, emissions, arctic, antarctic, zero carbon, stars, aussies, china, sun, Gore, schools, IPCC, NIPCC, climate models, hockey stick, trust in science.

ARGUMENTS THAT NO WARMIST CAN WIN

Below are two irrefutable arguments that should be top of any climate sceptic's list.

RECENT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD

Click here. To see a graph of both surface and satellite temperature; or here for satellite temperature record. Here for satellite records of various sections of the globe. Google Earth global temperatures are here

Followers

SIGN THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION TODAY

Sign HERE for common sense on climate. You can see the massive propaganda behind the "global warming" theory, so please stand up and be counted!

About Me

I have a BSc Honours degree in Applied Chemistry. After working in detergent research for a short while I then spent 17 years teaching science. Following that I ran my own successful property company with my wife Andrea. I am currently a New Forest District Councillor. I was involved in the campaign to try to keep Al Gore's political propaganda film out of English schools.